A recent private meeting between Upper Nazareth Township and Nazareth officials to discuss police services didn’t comply with the Sunshine Act, according to an attorney for the Pennsylvania Newspaper Association.

The meeting took place Oct. 3 behind closed doors following the regular Upper Nazareth Township Board of Supervisors meeting.

Upper Nazareth Board Chairman Michael Rinker announced the board would discuss police services with Nazareth Mayor Fred Daugherty Jr. and Council President Dan Chiavaroli. He said supervisors would not comment after the meeting.

Upper Nazareth Township Solicitor Gary Asteak says the governing bodies didn’t do anything wrong because they didn't take action, deliberate or make any decisions. The meeting was simply for fact-finding, he said.

“It certainly raises the issue, but only a judge can determine if it’s a violation,” said Melissa Melewsky, media law counsel for the Pennsylvania Newspaper Association. “A private meeting discussing any agency business … by definition that should occur at a public meeting. The agency is required to publicly announce the reason they are relying on.”

Melewsky said there are limited exceptions to the rule. A governing body can provide a legal basis for not opening the meeting, but would have to still give enough information to determine whether the private session is appropriate, she said. She said such closed sessions do not have to be advertised prior to being conducted.

“Saying 'We're going to focus on police services,' it doesn’t tell us any of the exceptions they are relying on,” she said. “They need to be a lot more forthcoming about why they believe this discussion is not to happen publicly. I believe it should have happened publicly. It’s their burden to tell the public why they believe it.”

The meeting came on the heels of a renewed contract the Nazareth Police Association was asked to sign by borough council in a “good faith” agreement they would be part of a potential merger with a neighboring municipality.

Upper Nazareth supervisors referred to Asteak on the issue. Daugherty didn’t return an email for comment and Chiavaroli referred to Nazareth Solicitor Al Pierce, who didn’t return a phone call for comment.

Chiavaroli told Nazareth Police Chief Thomas Trachta during Monday’s police committee meeting that council would not be releasing any information to the public about a police reorganization until a concrete decision is made.

Asteak argued the July 2012 case “Smith vs. Township of Richmond, Berks County” affirmed a decision of the Berks County Court of Common Pleas denying that the Richmond Board of Supervisors violated the Sunshine Act. In the ruling, Smith asserted the supervisors of his township violated the Sunshine Act by holding four “closed-door” meetings with different parties interested in litigation involving a township quarry, according to Nauman Smith’s Media and Right-to-Know Law practice group.

The court noted the lack of evidence indicating that deliberations or official actions had taken place during any of the meetings. The court then ruled agencies are free to hold non-public meetings solely for the purpose of information gathering, investigation or fact finding.

“It was in fact an information meeting and it was merely fact finding, no deliberation, no decision and no action taken," Asteak said, noting he was not present at the meeting. “From the township’s point of view, it was to hear what the borough had to say. There was no mystery what the topic of conversation was.”

Melewsky rebuts Asteak's argument, saying Upper Nazareth's announcement to the public didn't discuss "information gathering," it only said they were discussing "police services."The Smith decision certainly should not be treated as an invitation for agencies to hold private meetings, she said.

"The General Assembly was clear that the public has a right to witness, understand and participate in policy formation," Melewsky said. "The citizens have a right to understand why government decisions are made and a critical piece of that understanding could come from the meeting in question. Why wouldn't the township want to be as open as possible?"